Pruitt Communications chimes in on the same issue with a provocative thought. Just as it's dividing to say you're a follower of Paul, Apollos, or Cephas (cf. I Corinthians 1:10-17), so too is it divisive to distance yourself from those who form denominations by saying you're simply a follower of Christ. I hadn't thought about it that way, and apparently most commentators haven't either. I think that's what Paul must be referring to when he includes those who say they follow Christ in the list of factions. Those who say "I just follow Christ" are distancing themselves from those who follow John Piper, Rick Warren, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, or some denomination rather than some actual person. That in itself can be divisive. [I looked at four of the most important current commentaries, and not one of them even considered this as an option, but it seems more likely than any of the speculative explanations scholars have so far arrived at that a few of the commentators seemed fairly unsatisfied with; I should mention that a fifth commentary, by Craig Blomberg, did say something closer to this but didn't develop it. He said that perhaps some people were saying "I follow Christ" but were still factious.]
Eternal Perspectives included me among his top ten blogs. I've already linked to this obliquely in a previous post, but I'll menion here for the record that the call for the recount did not come from me but from from the now-anonymous blogger Parableman who hasn't posted since May 11, 2004 (check the May 2004 archives for that blogger's last post and my first). Since "blogs are ranked based upon philologicial [sic] value, theological vacuity, pedantry, obsequiousness, banality, and obfuscation", Parableman's call for a recount was not to see if this blog might advance to a higher ranking. It was to get it off the list entirely. Only the first, third, and sixth items on that list are goals this blog seeks to exemplify.
I've already responded to the arguments at Little Emily in the big world defending James Dobson's critique of the We Are Family video that had Spongebonb in it. I don't think any of the new facts Emily presents affect my main arguments against Dobson's statements. It's always good to get clear on the facts, but the moral arguments are still clear in my mind, and none of these facts helps establish the moral conclusion Dobson wanted to draw.
I knew Scientology was weird, but I didn't realize how weird it truly is. Allthings2all has summarizes of the history and science fiction behind this pseudo-religion. One of the weirdest quirks of German culture is that they're as paranoid about Scientology as the hard left in the U.S. is of evangelical Christians, perhaps even moreso (if that's possible). The difference is that their paranoia has caught hold with everyone on the popular level. They won't show Tom Cruise movies there because he's a Scientologist. I imagine they have the same policy with John Travolta.
Off the top considers a Christianity Today piece on the difficulties of being a stay-at-home mom. Even given that I'm home three days a week and half the day the other two, it's difficult around here with kids who are developmentally four months, eighteen months, and somewhere around two and a half, all still in diapers and none really communicating much. I can't imagine what it would be like if I went somewhere most of the day every day and worked on my dissertation the way I need to if I want to make any progress. When they're all sick at once, as they have been this week, it gets much worse.